Thompson v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 16802
| Decision Date | 01 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 16802,16802 |
| Citation | 224 S.C. 338,79 S.E.2d 160 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. |
T. C. Callison, Atty. Gen., William A. Dallis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, Mays, Featherstone & Bradford, Greenwood, for appellant.
Nicholson & Nicholson, Greenwood, for respondent.
For convenience the litigants will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, respectively.
This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenwood County for damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by a defect in the highway in Greenville County.
The case was previously before this Court on appeal of the defendant from an order refusing a motion of the defendant for a change of venue to Greenville County. The order appealed from was affirmed by this Court in an opinion reported in 221 S.C. 250, 70 S.E.2d 241.
At a trial of the case on its merits at the April (1952) term of the Court for Greenwood County, the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $4,000, upon which verdict judgment was duly entered, and this appeal followed.
The plaintiff in her complaint alleges that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the Highway Department in permitting a hole to form and remain unrepaired in the edge of the pavement and was not caused by her own negligence either as a sole or contributing cause. The defendant denies that there was a hole at the place alleged or in the vicinity thereof and alleges that the negligence of the driver of the automobile was the sole cause of the accident or was a contributing cause, and that said negligence was imputed to the plaintiff because of their being engaged in a joint enterprise or because the driver was acting as her agent or servant.
The defendant, after presentation of its oral testimony, offered in evidence the scene of the accident and made a motion that the jury be permitted to view it, which was denied. The defendant also made timely motions for a directed verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which were refused. This appeal is from the orders refusing the aforesaid motions and from the judgment.
The defendant (appellant) states the issues involved to be:
The defendant in its printed brief concedes, and properly so, that 'The testimony of plaintiff's witnesses tended to show that at the time and place of the accident there was a hole on the edge of the pavement and extending into the pavement some two (2') feet. While this is not admitted by the defendant, it will be assumed to be a fact in the discussion of the question of sole negligence of the driver and the subsequent discussion of the contributory negligence of the driver, since under questions such as these the facts must be looked on in the most favorable light to the plaintiff.' We add that there was also testimony on behalf of the plaintiff that the hole was 18 inches deep and something like 16 or 20 inches wide, and that this was the point where the driver of the car apparently lost control of the car, judging from tire marks in the hole and skid marks on the highway; and this was where one of the surviving occupants of the automobile felt a bump, and the other the car hitting a hole and feeling a hard jar.
The defendant relies strongly upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doremus v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...as an expert. It is contended, however, that his testimony was inadmissible under the holding of this court in Thompson v. S. C. State Highway Dept., 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160, and Willard v. McCoy, 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113. The factual situations involved in the cited cases are readi......
-
Elek v. Boyce
...for a new trial, is denied. The Clerk will enter judgment accordingly. And it is so ordered. 1 Quoting Thompson v. South Carolina Highway Department, 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160 (1953). 2 Quoting from 20 Am.Jur.; Evidence, Section ...
-
Green v. Sparks
...may form the correct conclusion therefrom. McCown v. Muldrow, 91 S.C. 523, 74 S.E. 386. In the case of Thompson v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160, 163, we 'We have heretofore remarked, in at least one opinion, that the testimony of highway patrolmen should b......
-
Gulledge v. McLaughlin
...patrolman who was not an eyewitness testified as to speed as well as how many times a car overturned); Thompson v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160 (1953) (highway patrolman who did not see accident was not competent to testify about speed of car); Huggins v. ......